Cargando…

Individualized flow-controlled ventilation compared to best clinical practice pressure-controlled ventilation: a prospective randomized porcine study

BACKGROUND: Flow-controlled ventilation is a novel ventilation method which allows to individualize ventilation according to dynamic lung mechanic limits based on direct tracheal pressure measurement at a stable constant gas flow during inspiration and expiration. The aim of this porcine study was t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Spraider, Patrick, Martini, Judith, Abram, Julia, Putzer, Gabriel, Glodny, Bernhard, Hell, Tobias, Barnes, Tom, Enk, Dietmar
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7686826/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33239039
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-020-03325-3
_version_ 1783613412095295488
author Spraider, Patrick
Martini, Judith
Abram, Julia
Putzer, Gabriel
Glodny, Bernhard
Hell, Tobias
Barnes, Tom
Enk, Dietmar
author_facet Spraider, Patrick
Martini, Judith
Abram, Julia
Putzer, Gabriel
Glodny, Bernhard
Hell, Tobias
Barnes, Tom
Enk, Dietmar
author_sort Spraider, Patrick
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Flow-controlled ventilation is a novel ventilation method which allows to individualize ventilation according to dynamic lung mechanic limits based on direct tracheal pressure measurement at a stable constant gas flow during inspiration and expiration. The aim of this porcine study was to compare individualized flow-controlled ventilation (FCV) and current guideline-conform pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) in long-term ventilation. METHODS: Anesthetized pigs were ventilated with either FCV or PCV over a period of 10 h with a fixed FiO(2) of 0.3. FCV settings were individualized by compliance-guided positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and peak pressure (P(peak)) titration. Flow was adjusted to maintain normocapnia and the inspiration to expiration ratio (I:E ratio) was set at 1:1. PCV was performed with a PEEP of 5 cm H(2)O and P(peak) was set to achieve a tidal volume (V(T)) of 7 ml/kg. The respiratory rate was adjusted to maintain normocapnia and the I:E ratio was set at 1:1.5. Repeated measurements during observation period were assessed by linear mixed-effects model. RESULTS: In FCV (n = 6), respiratory minute volume was significantly reduced (6.0 vs 12.7, MD − 6.8 (− 8.2 to − 5.4) l/min; p < 0.001) as compared to PCV (n = 6). Oxygenation was improved in the FCV group (paO(2) 119.8 vs 96.6, MD 23.2 (9.0 to 37.5) Torr; 15.97 vs 12.87, MD 3.10 (1.19 to 5.00) kPa; p = 0.010) and CO(2) removal was more efficient (paCO(2) 40.1 vs 44.9, MD − 4.7 (− 7.4 to − 2.0) Torr; 5.35 vs 5.98, MD − 0.63 (− 0.99 to − 0.27) kPa; p = 0.006). P(peak) and driving pressure were comparable in both groups, whereas PEEP was significantly lower in FCV (p = 0.002). Computed tomography revealed a significant reduction in non-aerated lung tissue in individualized FCV (p = 0.026) and no significant difference in overdistended lung tissue, although a significantly higher V(T) was applied (8.2 vs 7.6, MD 0.7 (0.2 to 1.2) ml/kg; p = 0.025). CONCLUSION: Our long-term ventilation study demonstrates the applicability of a compliance-guided individualization of FCV settings, which resulted in significantly improved gas exchange and lung tissue aeration without signs of overinflation as compared to best clinical practice PCV.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7686826
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76868262020-11-25 Individualized flow-controlled ventilation compared to best clinical practice pressure-controlled ventilation: a prospective randomized porcine study Spraider, Patrick Martini, Judith Abram, Julia Putzer, Gabriel Glodny, Bernhard Hell, Tobias Barnes, Tom Enk, Dietmar Crit Care Research BACKGROUND: Flow-controlled ventilation is a novel ventilation method which allows to individualize ventilation according to dynamic lung mechanic limits based on direct tracheal pressure measurement at a stable constant gas flow during inspiration and expiration. The aim of this porcine study was to compare individualized flow-controlled ventilation (FCV) and current guideline-conform pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) in long-term ventilation. METHODS: Anesthetized pigs were ventilated with either FCV or PCV over a period of 10 h with a fixed FiO(2) of 0.3. FCV settings were individualized by compliance-guided positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and peak pressure (P(peak)) titration. Flow was adjusted to maintain normocapnia and the inspiration to expiration ratio (I:E ratio) was set at 1:1. PCV was performed with a PEEP of 5 cm H(2)O and P(peak) was set to achieve a tidal volume (V(T)) of 7 ml/kg. The respiratory rate was adjusted to maintain normocapnia and the I:E ratio was set at 1:1.5. Repeated measurements during observation period were assessed by linear mixed-effects model. RESULTS: In FCV (n = 6), respiratory minute volume was significantly reduced (6.0 vs 12.7, MD − 6.8 (− 8.2 to − 5.4) l/min; p < 0.001) as compared to PCV (n = 6). Oxygenation was improved in the FCV group (paO(2) 119.8 vs 96.6, MD 23.2 (9.0 to 37.5) Torr; 15.97 vs 12.87, MD 3.10 (1.19 to 5.00) kPa; p = 0.010) and CO(2) removal was more efficient (paCO(2) 40.1 vs 44.9, MD − 4.7 (− 7.4 to − 2.0) Torr; 5.35 vs 5.98, MD − 0.63 (− 0.99 to − 0.27) kPa; p = 0.006). P(peak) and driving pressure were comparable in both groups, whereas PEEP was significantly lower in FCV (p = 0.002). Computed tomography revealed a significant reduction in non-aerated lung tissue in individualized FCV (p = 0.026) and no significant difference in overdistended lung tissue, although a significantly higher V(T) was applied (8.2 vs 7.6, MD 0.7 (0.2 to 1.2) ml/kg; p = 0.025). CONCLUSION: Our long-term ventilation study demonstrates the applicability of a compliance-guided individualization of FCV settings, which resulted in significantly improved gas exchange and lung tissue aeration without signs of overinflation as compared to best clinical practice PCV. BioMed Central 2020-11-25 /pmc/articles/PMC7686826/ /pubmed/33239039 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-020-03325-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Spraider, Patrick
Martini, Judith
Abram, Julia
Putzer, Gabriel
Glodny, Bernhard
Hell, Tobias
Barnes, Tom
Enk, Dietmar
Individualized flow-controlled ventilation compared to best clinical practice pressure-controlled ventilation: a prospective randomized porcine study
title Individualized flow-controlled ventilation compared to best clinical practice pressure-controlled ventilation: a prospective randomized porcine study
title_full Individualized flow-controlled ventilation compared to best clinical practice pressure-controlled ventilation: a prospective randomized porcine study
title_fullStr Individualized flow-controlled ventilation compared to best clinical practice pressure-controlled ventilation: a prospective randomized porcine study
title_full_unstemmed Individualized flow-controlled ventilation compared to best clinical practice pressure-controlled ventilation: a prospective randomized porcine study
title_short Individualized flow-controlled ventilation compared to best clinical practice pressure-controlled ventilation: a prospective randomized porcine study
title_sort individualized flow-controlled ventilation compared to best clinical practice pressure-controlled ventilation: a prospective randomized porcine study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7686826/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33239039
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-020-03325-3
work_keys_str_mv AT spraiderpatrick individualizedflowcontrolledventilationcomparedtobestclinicalpracticepressurecontrolledventilationaprospectiverandomizedporcinestudy
AT martinijudith individualizedflowcontrolledventilationcomparedtobestclinicalpracticepressurecontrolledventilationaprospectiverandomizedporcinestudy
AT abramjulia individualizedflowcontrolledventilationcomparedtobestclinicalpracticepressurecontrolledventilationaprospectiverandomizedporcinestudy
AT putzergabriel individualizedflowcontrolledventilationcomparedtobestclinicalpracticepressurecontrolledventilationaprospectiverandomizedporcinestudy
AT glodnybernhard individualizedflowcontrolledventilationcomparedtobestclinicalpracticepressurecontrolledventilationaprospectiverandomizedporcinestudy
AT helltobias individualizedflowcontrolledventilationcomparedtobestclinicalpracticepressurecontrolledventilationaprospectiverandomizedporcinestudy
AT barnestom individualizedflowcontrolledventilationcomparedtobestclinicalpracticepressurecontrolledventilationaprospectiverandomizedporcinestudy
AT enkdietmar individualizedflowcontrolledventilationcomparedtobestclinicalpracticepressurecontrolledventilationaprospectiverandomizedporcinestudy